MTZ (MTZ)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 7/9, Altman Z 4.4 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe equity economics of MTZ present a dichotomy between robust growth momentum and thin operational profitability. While the company demonstrates strong revenue expansion at 16.2% year-over-year, underpinning a Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 which signals solid fundamental strength, its return profile is constrained by low net margins of 2.8%. The DuPont decomposition reveals that this modest bottom line is offset by aggressive leverage and high asset efficiency; specifically, an equity multiplier of 2.98x and an impressive asset turnover ratio of 1.44x drive a total ROE of 12.0%, masking the fact that core operating spreads are narrow relative to investment capital deployed.
Valuation metrics suggest significant market optimism regarding future earnings potential, with the current price-to-earnings multiple of 60.5x trading substantially above historical norms and sector averages implied by such a premium valuation. This high multiple appears inconsistent with the discounted cash flow model's fair value estimate of $37, indicating that current pricing incorporates aggressive growth assumptions not fully reflected in present financial statements. The disparity between the market price and DCF-derived value implies that investors are betting on margin expansion or acceleration beyond the currently realized 2.8% net margin to justify the premium multiple.
Risk assessment is complicated by divergent signals regarding corporate governance and capital allocation. Although internal metrics like a negative Beneish M-Score of -2.33 suggest low manipulation risk, recent insider activity shows $2,261,758 in net selling over the last 90 days, creating a counterweight to the strong Piotroski score. This combination of high valuation compression against thin margins and mixed sentiment from insiders suggests the stock carries elevated volatility; any miss on margin improvement could trigger a sharp multiple contraction given the limited safety margin between current pricing and intrinsic value estimates.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 13.3% | 15.3% | 17.3% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $44 | $34 | $26 |
| 3% | $49 | $37 | $28 |
| 4% | $54 | $40 | $30 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=15.3%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $37 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
DuPont Analysis — ROE Decomposition
Breaking down Return on Equity to see how the company generates its ROE — efficiency, margins, or leverage.
Balance Sheet Health
Insider Activity (Last 90 Days)
Open-market buys vs sells by company insiders. Source: yfinance.
Earnings Surprise History
EPS estimates vs actuals for the most recent reported quarters. Source: yfinance.
Underwater (Drawdown from Peak)
How far below the all-time high the price has been over time. Deeper = more pain for holders.
Rolling 60-Day Beta vs S&P 500 (VOO)
How the stock's sensitivity to market moves changes over time. β > 1 = more volatile than the market.
Fundamentals
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like IJK or MDYG, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell MTZ shares regardless of MTZ's individual fundamentals. We estimate $3.2B of passive capital is structurally linked to MTZ through 8 tracked ETFs. Index rebalances and ETF creation/redemption cycles can create noticeable volume spikes unrelated to company news.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 8 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in MTZ to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If MTZ (MTZ) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies FLEX LTD (FLEX) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with MTZ. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 16 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
MTZ Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest MTZ Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 14 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
MTZ Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does MTZ convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
MTZ converts 26% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a moderate conversion rate — significant EBITDA is consumed by capital expenditures, working capital changes, or interest payments. The 74% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-7.1%), suggesting reinvested capital is destroying shareholder value.
Capital efficiency = Free Cash Flow ÷ EBITDA. Reinvestment = (EBITDA − FCF) ÷ EBITDA. Metrics from latest annual filings. Not investment advice.
Fails-to-Deliver (FTD) History
SEC-reported settlement failures. Elevated FTDs can indicate high short-selling pressure, operational settlement issues, or naked shorting activity.
| Date | Failed Shares | Close Price | Notional Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-14 | 1,443 | $423.79 | $611,528.97 |
| 2026-05-05 | 1,030 | $425.39 | $438,151.7 |
| 2026-04-20 | 789 | $370.89 | $292,632.21 |
| 2026-04-09 | 12 | $348.11 | $4,177.32 |
| 2026-03-26 | 1,266 | $323.55 | $409,614.3 |
| 2026-03-23 | 104 | $300.58 | $31,260.32 |
| 2026-03-20 | 5,952 | $312.72 | $1.9M |
| 2026-02-27 | 93 | $289.96 | $26,966.28 |
| 2026-02-25 | 148 | $287.70 | $42,579.6 |
| 2026-01-23 | 529 | $244.57 | $129,377.53 |
| 2026-01-21 | 32,203 | $240.35 | $7.7M |
| 2026-01-20 | 669 | $242.31 | $162,105.39 |
| 2025-12-30 | 86 | $222.76 | $19,157.36 |
| 2025-12-02 | 4,813 | $212.14 | $1.0M |
| 2025-11-18 | 85 | $193.39 | $16,438.15 |
| 2025-11-14 | 4 | $190.08 | $760.32 |
| 2025-10-27 | 144 | $211.88 | $30,510.72 |
| 2025-10-22 | 3,940 | $207.18 | $816,289.2 |
| 2025-10-15 | 2,584 | $205.38 | $530,701.92 |
| 2025-10-14 | 985 | $203.26 | $200,211.1 |
| 2025-10-10 | 1,358 | $210.09 | $285,302.22 |
| 2025-10-03 | 19,387 | $215.40 | $4.2M |
Source: SEC Regulation SHO FTD data. Data is reported with a ~30 day delay. High FTD quantities relative to average daily volume may indicate settlement stress.
Compare MTZ to Peers
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: N/A.
SecuritiesDB provides programmatic data aggregation for informational purposes only. None of the metrics, summaries, or algorithmic flags constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any security.